Debating Shanta’s blog on the emergency, we worried about missing the deck chairs for the titanic—are facts on performance important at this point in Pakistan’s history? From the comments to Shanta’s post, it does appear that Pakistan’s performance in the last two decades will inform the current debate. This perspective finds broader acceptance. The Pakistan Policy Blog’s excellent summary of Negroponte’s appearance on the hill included the following:
Since 9/11:
• the Pakistani government has arrested or killed more al-Qaeda and Taliban than any other country;
• Pakistan’s economy has grown rapidly;
• civil society and media have grown “events of recent days notwithstanding”;
• There is a more participatory national debate;
• Human rights and civil society organizations are more prominent than in the past;
• Pakistan has become a more moderate and prosperous country since Musharraf has come into power;
• But only civilian democracy can secure a prosperous future for Pakistan
Source: Pakistan Policy blog
Each of these can be debated with the facts.
Fortunately, one amazing development in the new millennium is the surge in research on Pakistan, both by scholars in Pakistan, Pakistani scholars abroad and a wider research community. This community has written extensively on poverty, growth, inequality, banking and finance, the stock market, education, madrassa enrollment, devolution and local politics, networks, sectarian conflict, migration and remittances, blasphemy laws, cultural institutions and women’s welfare and a host of other topics.
What we need from you is input into the facts that interest you and that you think are relevant for the debate. We can then try and get researchers to write in, or link to the relevant literature. Also, the more suggestions the better—so do send this link to others who might like to contribute!
Mariam Claeson
Tue, 11/20/2007 - 05:27
While Pakistan may have achieved high economic growth since 2003, the military or quasi-military rule threatens the very foundations of the state and its institutions. Unfortunately, the western priorities are misplaced and run contrary to the interests of the people of Pakistan. Even more fatal could be the repercussions of the way the U.S. has handled Afghanistan and the manner in which the military rulers have used Washington's needs to further their own agenda. The issues are much more complex than Pakistan Policy blog's summary appears to indicate.
The people of Pakistan, with their country under martial law and thousands of freedom loving lawyers and activists in jail, are worried about their country’s future, put at stake due to the blunders of a U.S.-backed military general. They consider the insurgency on their northern frontiers – War on Terror for the U.S. – a disaster brought upon them by a thoughtless American-designed and American-funded military campaign. President Bush is concerned about the fate of War on Terror if Musharraf leaves the scene. Senator Joe Biden likens Pakistan to Iran in 1979. Both views appear to lack depth and show inadequate understanding of the issues. War on Terror is not at stake nor is Pakistan Iran of 1979. Pakistan could however become another post-2001 Iraq if the U.S. continues to use the two-pronged approach of military rule (direct or in disguise with a civilian facade) in Pakistan and military approach to the War on Terror in Afghanistan as a solution.
The U.S. policy is disproportionately focused on Afghanistan although Pakistan’s stability and progress depend ultimately on peace with India. With Afghanistan in turmoil and the insurgency spilling over to Pakistan’s northern frontiers, it is in the best interest of both the south Asian nations to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. NATO can never hope to succeed where the Russians and the British failed when they used their armies.
As a Pakistani with a strong belief in liberal democracy, as an observer of the devastation caused by prolonged periods of military dictatorships in Pakistan, and as a former employee of the biggest American bank, in which capacity I had years of experience with the developing world, I must draw attention of the West to the fact that President Bush and General Musharraf have collectively created a catastrophic mess in Afghanistan and in the thinly populated tribal areas in neighboring Pakistan.
Almost twenty-eight years ago, in its cover story of January 15 1979 issue, TIME magazine quoted a Western diplomat to make its point about Pakistan, “is that there is another [Colonel Muammar] Gaddafi down there, some radical major or colonel in the Pakistani army. We could wake up and find him in Zia’s place one morning and believe me, Pakistan wouldn’t be the only place that would be destabilized.” Misguided analysis and faulty judgement can bring hallucinations of a bloody revolution. In 2007, the talk of an extremists’ takeover in Pakistan has become a cliché in the West. It was nonsense to talk about a radical junior army officer taking over in Pakistan in 1979 and it is equally absurd to talk about extremists or Al-Qaeda supporters taking over Pakistan today.
Religious extremists form probably less than one percent of 160 million population of Pakistan - World’s sixth largest - and most of the so-called ‘jihadi’ groups owed their creation and sustenance to the former military dictator General Ziaul Haq and will not have a leg to stand on without the sympathy of some well-known and not-so-frequently mentioned forces inside Pakistani establishment. What has made the matters worse is the role of Bush administration and its novices in international affairs, like Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice. The problem has been compounded by a dearth of Pakistan experts in the Bush White House.
Pakistan’s campaign against the militants in the North West Pakistan has unleashed a backlash on an unprecedented scale. For the first time since 1971 Bangla Desh war, there have been desertions among the troops in a manner and on a scale that has shook General Musharaff’s regime. He has lost the trust and confidence of the people and is widely seen as a puppet of an unpopular American President, in cahoots with corrupt and wily ‘mullahs’, and one who does not hesitate to use helicopter gunships to attack villages in his own country to please his masters in Washington. May not be wholly true, but that is the general perception and hence there is virtually no popular support for the so-called War on Terror. Even Benazir Bhutto believes “IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] are being placed and have been hushed up under the name of suicide bombings”.
While the core of the militants remained limited to a few thousand Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas until 2004-2005, the insurgency has erupted in other areas and a wave of violence and bomb attacks threatens to destabilize Pakistan. The policy of using force to combat extremism is producing thousands of supporters instead of isolating the militants. General Ehsanul Haq, who has recently retired from the army as Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee chairman and who also served as Pakistan top spymaster, recently said that a predominantly military approach to counter-terrorism was deeply flawed and might not take the world anywhere. “It can at best achieve tactical effects of affording time and space for the application of a comprehensive strategy aimed at addressing the root causes that drive radicalisation of Muslim societies and recruitment into the ranks of extremists and terrorists,” he recently told the participants of the annual conference of the Middle East Institute at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The presence of American troops has given the extremists a casus belli to enlist thousands of supporters to fight the ‘infidels and foreigners’ who have their invaded their land. The time is running out and the only solution is a grand reconciliation between Islamabad, Kabul and moderate Talibans so that the extremists can be isolated. But that will not be possible while Musharraf is in power and American troops are in Afghanistan.
Mark L. Schneider of International Crisis Group told the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee on “Counternarcotics and Police Training” in Afghanistan, on October 4 2007, “there was a disturbing failure to commit sufficient resources — either military or reconstruction aid to Afghanistan — by the U.S. and by the international community; an even greater failure to require the Pakistan government to close Taliban command and control centers, sanctuaries and Taliban recruiting in Jihadi mosques and madrassas; and an absolute refusal to recognise the links between exploding opium trafficking, insecurity and a corrosive culture of impunity.” Islamabad has no real interest in actually containing the Taliban because the insurgency has become the raison dtre for Musharraf’s regime. It has also indulged in disinformation campaign in the media. Most recent example was the story planted in the local newspapers before the arrival of Benazir Bhutto on October 18 that a Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud had threatened to kill her. No such threat was issued and was strongly denied by Mehsud.
Clearly, the US has been wrong to assume that those who benefit from perpetuation of the conflict [e.g., General Musharraf] would help to end it. Further more, this military campaign is based on a dangerous premise - 40 percent pushtun population of Afghanistan is Talibans or its sympathizers. A military solution to bring peace and stability to a war torn narco-state of Afghanistan, in the face of growing religious sentiment combined with nationalist pushtun feelings, is doomed to fail. The US pays lip service to the development but its record is dismal and is scoffed at by the locals. The U.S. failure in Afghanistan has fuelled an insurgency that has created civil war like conditions in the North West frontier region of Pakistan. A little more money now is going to be ‘too little, too late’. The insurgency has already destabilized the military regime in Pakistan and could lead to a bigger catastrophe in the next five years. The worst outcome will be a pushtun rebellion on both sides of Durand line, the border between the two countries. At the least, it would make Pakistan ungovernable with unpredictable consequences. The West needs to get the support of Muslim countries like Turkey, Indonesia and Egypt to restore order in Afghanistan, which is nominally ruled by a non-government led by an incompetent Hamid Karzai. Only through a comprehensive political approach; that has the backing and full involvement of major political and tribal groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and which is supported by the deployment of the troops of Muslim countries in Afghanistan, we can have some hope of restoring order in Afghanistan and save Pakistan from becoming another battleground like Iraq.
Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark recently wrote in San Francisco Chronicle, “the organized electoral momentum of the jihadists is negligible. They have rarely been able to scoop more than 10 percent of the vote in previous Pakistani elections, so the chance of electing a theocratic regime in Islamabad is slim. Their military capability, when compared to the vast, wealthy and well-trained Pakistan military, is equally diminutive, too. However, their prime asset is Musharraf, whose wielding of jihadis at times of necessity has empowered them immeasurably, while his refusal to whole-heartedly crack down on their camps and training bases has emboldened them.”
The United States must therefore freeze all aid to Pakistan until an elected government takes over. Continuing the aid will send a wrong signal to Musharraf that he can get away with imposing a draconian rule of the secret services over Pakistan. The $10 billion aid since 2002 has been directed for military with no accountability. It has served to consolidate General’s hold on power without any benefit to the people of Pakistan or democracy. In any event, nothing is at stake in the short term because Pakistan, with $16 billion of foreign exchange reserves, has enough resources to fight the insurgency on its own for at least two years. However, suspension of aid will send a positive signal to the people of Pakistan that the United States really supports their freedom and will serve as warning to the Army that irresponsible behavior can result in international isolation. Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and dependent on Western capital flows to finance its growing current account deficit at nearly 5 percent of its GDP, Pakistan is more dependent on Western support and goodwill than some people believe.
Musharraf imposed a de-facto martial law to protect himself and perpetuate his rule. He is cracking down hard on the democratic forces in the country and not on the terrorists. One of his senior aides told New York Times that Musharraf imposed martial law only after a judge told him that the supreme court was about to declare his election illegal. An IRI poll - taken before the emergency was declared - reported his approval rating at an all time low of 21 percent. Musharraf must withdraw emergency, quit as Army chief, reverse all illegal actions, reinstate all judges dismissed in violation of the constitution, and release all political prisoners. He should hand over power to Pakistan Senate Chairman (in accordance with the constitution) who should hold elections under international supervision and transfer power to an elected government by February 2008. With no constitution, no parliament, more than half the senior judges sent home, media gagged, a quarter of the country’s lawyers in jail and courts shut down, it is simply not possible for Pakistan to move forward under Musharraf.
Yousuf Nazar
Former Head of Global Emerging Markets Investments, CitigroupSat, 11/17/2007 - 20:27 the biggest issue is to ask not how corrupt were elected leaders but whether dictatorship is at all conducive to the welfare of the poor. We have no guarantee that people killed or turotured under draconian laws were guilty of any crime or whether they were simply killed. Without a consititution, rule of law and free press and free judiciary, mere elections are not democracy. Remember Hitler. You do need to have more discussions on what we mean by democracy. Second we need discussions on how the elite relate to the demands for sharia law or more restrictions on women around which many parties are organizing themselves. In sort amore fact based honest discussion on what does Pakistan hope to be? A moderate, modern Msualim soiciety? A pure Msulim socieity? A democrcy which happens to be Muslim?
Sun, 11/25/2007 - 13:34 Annonymous says, what does Pakistan want to be? This is a very good question but is there one Pakistan or many? When Pakistan was born the Hindus from East Pakistan participated in Constitution making. Is there any minority member now - Hindu, Christain, Ahmadiya - who feels that he can be part of the political process? All these groups could live peacefully together if Pakistan concenterated on poverty, development, and allowed people to be what they want to be - religous or secular, traditional or modern. But can we mobilize when we cannot even put our names on comments for fear of being called unpatriotic? Jishnu and Shanta seem like Hindu names - could they have written all this if they lived in Pakistan? we are suffocating.
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 05:17
If I approach the matter, I would make a results-based evaluation. Otherwise the dismal science would paint a dismal picture. With complex, integrated issues in Pakistan, it's not easy to jumpstart an one statistic. Dealing with matters of women and children, for example, would first require a more subtle and long-drawn effort regarding changing social norms and perceptions.
Is that, or is that not the job of a government? How can the government achieve it, and how soon? - These are obtuse queries. The government has to achieve results and deliver on certain criteria - which it does. In relative circumstances, absolute criteria can't be met. World over, a more realistic and conciliatory approach towards human development is emerging. The like should apply to any analysis of Pakistan.
Next, contemporary economic concerns regarding environment and the commons must be investigated. As it happens, development and investment in Pakistan is sometimes at the cost of larger social concerns. One reason is that being a developing country, Pakistan does face the certain disregard that issues of developong nations face. For private investors, wider social concerns anyhow aren't a personal concern elsewhere in the world either.
What proactive measures have the people the government of Pakistan taken on climate change and environment should be of concern. Is Pak's economic development at a cost? What has Pakistan learned from the Kashmir Earthquake and the Balochistan/Sindh floods? How does the need for water management factor in? What setbacks have natural disasters given to the national economy?
Finally, social priorities as determined by rhetoric should be examined. Are Pakistanis paying popular attention to issues we ought to be paying attention to? What is the quality and content of our views and actions? On this subject, apart from mainstream media, the Internet-driven citizen media will be a tremendous resource. Look into Chowk.com, Orkut, Facebook, BuzzVines.com, Chowrangi.com, city government websites, citizen blogs, etc.
To summarize what can be a long research premise - meta-thinking has to be done while examining socio-economic-political indicators.
---
Some of these suggestions place the onus more on Pakistanis because we are the ones aware of ground realities. Any international researchers and journalists will benefit from walking about the country and talking to a variety of people - exploring the whole mosaic of cultures and opinions in Pakistan, without pre-tilting in any one direction.
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 05:01
A good area to look into would be the kinds of institutions set up by (or under) the Musharraf regime.
The second area would be (all ironies apart) the legislative acts drawn - particular in the micro/ local areas. In the civic institutions.
Flawed as Musharraf's results might be, his focus was more on "institution building." At the government or civic level, and in private enterprise - Pakistan has a wide open gap of institutions and NGOs. We don't even have organically developed industrial standards. Part poor education, part unwillingness, part we-are-underlings mentality, and mostly a feudal-worshipping mindset contribute to lack of active enterprise and responsibility in Pakistan. Which is a shame because the people are enterprising and daring by personal nature.
The third area would be private enterprise, inclusing social/ non-profit ventures. This activity is neither directly created nor controlled by the government, but its strength/weakness shows that there is a general climate that encourages/discourages it. The growth of enterprise can be reviewed in absolute or relative terms. However Pakistan is the kind of unique country which renders useless most comparisons with other nations or times.
Contd....Mon, 11/12/2007 - 23:08 I think there are a few facts that may be as important in the current debate:
Thu, 11/15/2007 - 05:55
The things that are highlighted here are not how the government claims them to be
• the Pakistani government has arrested or killed more al-Qaeda and Taliban than any other country;
[The people who were arrested never was charged with a crime rather just on suspicion and went under interrogation without any warrant. The Agencies now kidnap the people they want and sell them to American CIA for a few thousand dollars. Its a good business]
• Pakistan’s economy has grown rapidly;
[The poor in Pakistan is either dead or dying. Only one class (the so-called elite) of society has benefited]
• civil society and media have grown “events of recent days notwithstanding”;
[Now we have restrictions on media again in the state of Emergency because media was showing the truth about the dictator]
• There is a more participatory national debate;
[Not any more... we have marshall law and no constitution]
• Human rights and civil society organizations are more prominent than in the past;
[All the rights are gone in this state of Emergency. Bugati in Balochistan was killed in a military operation. In waziristan people are being killed by the army. Swat is under attack by the army. All is being done for the Americans in the name Terrorism and not by any national concensus. The Pakistani Army is getting 20 billion US dollars a year to do that. Pakistan's Army is on the pay roll of American government.]
• Pakistan has become a more moderate and prosperous country since Musharraf has come into power;
[What about the Suicide attacks everyday?? Have you forgotten about the Red mosque??]
[This is the only point that is true. The rest seems to be the result of poor analysis]• But only civilian democracy can secure a prosperous future for Pakistan